Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

Is the UK turning its back on Afghanistan and Pakistan? – Bond

The past few years have brought significant challenges for people living in Afghanistan and Pakistan, driven by complex economic crises and the continued impact of climate change.

Humanitarian conditions in Afghanistan are deteriorating at pace, with a projected two-thirds of the population over 28 million people expected to need humanitarian assistance in the coming year. The dire situation for women and girls in Afghanistan is particularly concerning, with their rights increasingly curtailed.

In Pakistan, the economic downturn and rising inflation have left many families unable to afford basic healthcare. This has been compounded by a series of devastating natural disasters, such as last years floods, which affected millions of people, destroyed thousands of homes and damaged an already struggling economy.

It is against this backdrop that the UK government has announced its aid budget to these two countries for the next financial year, which confirms a reduction of over 53% from last year, more than any other region. A reduction of this level could have serious consequences for people living in these countries who rely on humanitarian support but also raises questions about the credibility of the UKs stated commitments. For instance, how do the promises made by the UK during COP26 stack up if funding to Pakistan is reduced? Similarly, how can expressed words of solidarity for Afghan women be meaningful, if vital programmes that support women and girls risk closure as a result of UK cuts?

For Afghans in particular, these cuts will only compound an overwhelming sense of abandonment. It is also concerning for NGOs, both international and Afghan organisations, who are working tirelessly to provide lifesaving assistance in the country, despite significant operational challenges.

The recent ban on the employment of Afghan women from NGOs has been particularly challenging. There are concerns that any further reduction in UK aid could impact the ability of aid organisations and local partners to implement programmes and deliver essential services to those who need them most. We must ensure that the response from donors, including the UK, helps rather than hurts Afghans.

Our weekly email newsletter, Network News, is an indispensable weekly digest of the latest updates on funding, jobs, resources, news and learning opportunities in the international development sector.

This reduction has also come just days after the UK aid watchdog, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), criticised the use of approximately one-third of the UKs aid budget on the first-year costs of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK.

This marks a failure in the UKs moral and legal responsibility to support both people seeking safety in the UK and those facing conflict, climate change and inequality around the world. It also raises concerns about the value for money and the lack of transparency in aid spending.

We hope, first and foremost, that the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) will reconsider its funding decisions for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with careful consideration about the human consequences that such a significant reduction in aid could have.

Despite the significant challenges in Afghanistan, we have been encouraged by the continued commitment of FCDO staff to understand the complexity of the situation and try to find solutions to support the Afghan people.

However, given the funding gap, the FCDO should clearly outline how it intends to meet its commitments. For instance, the FCDO has committed to supporting women and girls in Afghanistan as a focus country in the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. Policy commitments need to be followed up with meaningful funding.

Also in Afghanistans context, rather than kneejerk reactions to Taliban policies, donors should be thinking strategically about its engagement with Afghanistan to focus on promoting economic stability, for example, supporting the recovery of the countrys private sector.

The recent aid cut to Afghanistan and Pakistan by the UK government is a cause for serious concern. Whilst the full impact of the cuts remains to be seen, we fear that it could be devastating for people living in these countries who are struggling so much. This is not the time for the UK to turn its back.

Continued here:
Is the UK turning its back on Afghanistan and Pakistan? - Bond

Cortez Masto Visits Family She Helped Bring to Las Vegas After … – Catherine Cortez Masto

April 12, 2023

Las Vegas, Nev. Last week, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) visited with Mohammad Benny Shirzad, an Afghan interpreter for U.S. troops, and his family, who she helped bring to Las Vegas from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country. After learning about the danger from the Taliban the family was facing in Afghanistan, Cortez Masto successfully helped cut through red tape to expedite the processing of their visa applications.

I pushed hard to cut through red tape and ensure that this family could be reunited, and Im thrilled to see them together again in Las Vegas, said Senator Cortez Masto. Afghan allies like Mr. Shirzad and his family put their lives on the line to help U.S. troops, and Ill always stand up for them.

During the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Benny served as an interpreter for U.S. troops and refugees, and he then helped with evacuation flights from the country. Benny was selected for the Diversity Visa and was able to relocate to Las Vegas with help of retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Scott Hoffman but without his wife and parents who were stuck in Afghanistan. Facing increased harassment from the Taliban, Mr. Shirzads wife and parents fled to Pakistan. Senator Cortez Masto and her office repeatedly pushed immigration officials to review the familys visa and humanitarian parole applications, and thanks to her help the family was reunited in Las Vegas last month.

Senator Cortez Masto has been diligently working with the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security on a large number of cases regarding the evacuation of Afghanistan and has pushed bipartisan legislation to strengthen the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program to help protect the Afghan civilians who risked their lives to support the U.S. mission.

###

Read more:
Cortez Masto Visits Family She Helped Bring to Las Vegas After ... - Catherine Cortez Masto

Interview: Rep. Jason Crow on the Afghanistan withdrawal and the … – Colorado Public Radio

We stopped having a national conversation about it, and we stopped holding people accountable, he said. I think the ultimate question here is, as the nation, why did we allow a war to go on for 20 years when there were more than enough signs that this war was unwinnable and we weren't going to achieve our goals years ago?"

So what happened? And why did we stop having that national conversation?

Crow also addressed the recent leaks of military documents covering areas like the war in Ukraine and Egypts desire to provide missiles to Russia, ostensibly to use in that conflict. If true, Crow said, that would require the U.S. to rethink its relationship with the Mideast nation, long regarded as one of Americas oldest allies.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Ryan Warner: Congressman, thanks for being with us.

Rep. Jason Crow, (D) Colorado: Always good to be with you, Ryan.

Warner: Before we get to Afghanistan, there's a developing foreign affairs story, the leak of Pentagon documents related to a whole host of countries, Ukraine, Russia, China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Canada, and the list goes on. According to the Washington Post, one of the leaks labeled top secret seems to indicate the U.S. has doubts about a Ukrainian counter offensive against Russia, along with other misgivings. That document was produced in February, I'll note, but I'm wondering what your reaction is to that particular file and to the leaks in general.

Crow: First of all, the leaks in general. I mean, this looks like a very troubling, very problematic leak. It's broad, it's certainly one of the bigger leaks that I've seen probably in my time in Congress. So Im very troubled by it. But I think we also should have some perspective here that this is a snapshot in time. Wars evolve, things change from day-to-day. This is a snapshot that the documents appear to be a snapshot in time from February and March, so maybe of limited value. Yet at the same time, it does show troop strength numbers, disposition of troops, things of that nature, but also signals intelligence intercepts from various countries.

So, very problematic. I've asked for a full briefing by the Defense Department on the nature of this leak, what they know about it, what they've done to mitigate it, but the concerns about the ability of the Ukrainians to conduct a counter offensive, we've heard these concerns from day one, and every single time we hear these concerns, the Ukrainians overperform. People said that they couldn't learn how to use weapons systems that they then ended up not only learning how to use, but learning how to use better than the U.S. in many instances. So they've always overperformed. They've always surprised people in a positive way, and I expect they'll continue to do that.

Warner: Do you think that the leak has Russian fingerprints? I guess I don't want you to speculate, but do you have any sense here?

Crow: I don't. I think it's too early to tell. I mean, it certainly borders on a kind of seditious or treasonous act in my view. Somebody that would take documents of this nature and publish them online, and certainly not somebody that has the best interest of America in mind here. So what their motivation is, who did it, remains to be seen.

Warner: When you look at the collection of files in its entirety, another example is Egypt, which is considered an ally of the U.S., trying to supply rockets to Russia. In what ways do you think the U.S. is left most vulnerable?

Crow: I'm going to be calling for a full review of our relationship with Egypt because we shouldn't be spending $1.3 or $1.4 billion a year to assist them with their military and their modernization efforts. If they're then going in the back door and looking at sending weapons and equipment to Russia, I mean, that is not the type of friend or alliance that I think we need to have. And we should do a full analysis of what we're doing and why we're doing it and whether or not we need to hold some folks accountable.

Warner: I gather from that answer, Congressman, that you have learned some things from these documents. This was not classified material you'd had access to.

Crow: I wouldn't say I've learned things from these documents. I mean, I sit on the House Intelligence Committee, which has access to all of the intelligence of the United States in every category. So I'll refrain from saying whether or not there's something new or not. But the real troubling aspect is that this has been public and is information that's widely available now, which of course is unacceptable.

Warner: To Afghanistan, and some context. When the U.S. tried to evacuate people from the airport in Kabul, just about two years ago, 13 American servicemen were killed in a suicide bombing. Afghans who'd been helpful to the U.S. cause were left to fend for themselves against the Taliban. I gather you have read the National Security Council's report, and what's a big takeaway for you from it?

Crow: I have. Obviously this is something that I've struggled with a lot, this withdrawal. I've supported the administration's decision to end the war. I thought the war was unwinnable. It was unwinnable a long time ago, and I didn't think we should continue to spend tens of billions of dollars a year and American lives in an unwinnable war. And I wanted to see it end. And the president had the courage to do something that prior presidents and congresses weren't willing to do, and he did it. Now, I did think that that withdrawal was messy. It was chaotic. There were a lot of mistakes that were made, and I haven't pulled punches on that. I think we have left behind some of our Afghan partners and their families, and I've worked really hard to make sure we're pulling those folks out. And I've been one of the leaders in Congress on legislation to help get these people into safety and into the United States and other countries.

But this report shows a couple of things. Number one, that this is a longtime mistake. This isn't just August of 2021. This was a 20-year mistake. And Donald Trump was the one who negotiated this deal in the dark without even consulting with the military or the State Department and our allies, and committed the U.S. to a withdrawal timeline that was untenable. And then started a withdrawal of troops immediately thereafter.

And then President Biden inherited all that and was really left with two choices. Either comply with that agreement or not comply with that agreement, in which case the Taliban would conduct a full out assault on U.S. troops. We didn't have enough troops in the country at that time to respond to that attack. We would've had to have sent in 10, 15, 20,000 more, and it would've been all out war, which of course was not a tenable result.

So I think he then made the decision to move forward with the withdrawal. But yes, there were problems with the conduct of that: lack of unity of command, lack of guidance, lack of coordination between State Department and DOD. And of course the withdrawal itself should have started earlier. And the report shows that. It says that there should have been an earlier withdrawal. So there are lessons learned, but I want to take a holistic look at this and not just look at it in one small narrow frame.

Warner: One commentator from the Center for Naval Analyses has called the NFC's assessment, a political document designed to deflect blame in advance of a gathering storm of House GOP hearings. What's your response?

Crow: I fully disagree with that. The document and the spokespeople for the Department of Defense for the State Department, even Secretary of State Tony Blinken last week, during a gathering of State Department employees, admitted that there were mistakes and admitted that withdrawal should have started earlier. They have admitted things that could have been done better because in an operation like this, of course, there are missteps and mistakes and things that didn't go well, and they've taken responsibility for that. But you just can't look at a 20-year war where there's over 3000 American soldiers that were killed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, a two-decade story of missteps and mistakes. You just can't look at that in isolation. Ten congresses, both Republican and Democrat, and four presidential administrations, also both Republican and Democrat, made mistakes, self-blinded, kept this going when it should have ended a long time ago. And that's a story that America needs to come to terms with. We can't afford to do this again.

Warner: You talked about those left behind. In a statement you issued after the release of the NFC's report, you said, "I might not be here today without the guides and translators that aided our efforts, many of whom are still trying to escape Afghanistan." Congressman Crow, could you elaborate on that? Is there anyone in particular that you have in mind?

Crow: Yeah, my translators, my guides, they were essential, and I'm not going to name names to keep people safe, but time after time, we'd be out on patrol deep into Afghanistan territory, in the mountains. And those guides would be a lot more than just people that would translate the words. They would help me understand the culture. They would help me understand what's going on. I mean, numerous instances where I would be meeting with tribal elders deep in a village, somewhere in a remote area, where we're very vulnerable in a small unit, and my translator would say, "Hey, there's something not right here. Something doesn't match up. What you're being told is not consistent with the history of this tribe in this region. They're giving each other looks that make me uncomfortable and that translator would have the ability to understand what was going on, the subtext, what was being said between the words. And I could make decisions to pull out. I could make decisions to move my troops around based on that. That was essential. It protected us. It protected the locals in many instances. And these folks did that work at great personal risk to themselves and their families, knowing and thinking that we would keep our promise and do right by them. So that's the moral commitment that we have. That's the national security commitment that we have, and we have to strive to keep it.

Warner: You've pushed indeed for more visas to help some of the folks you're talking about. Where do things stand on growing the number of those special immigrant visas?

Crow: So we passed my Allies Act in July of 2021, which actually was one of the most bipartisan bills in Congress that summer. It passed with 416 votes. Only a handful of Republicans voted against it, but it was overwhelmingly bipartisan. And I continue to co-chair the Honoring Our Promises Working Group, which is a bipartisan working group in the House of largely veterans actually, both Republican and Democrat, who are working to pass legislation. I'm working with Senator Jeanne Shaheen, to put together a comprehensive package of legislation to expand visas, to expedite the process, to do things like remote processing. All things that need to be done to make it easier for folks who are still in Afghanistan when we don't have an embassy there in operations on the ground there anymore, to still have a mechanism to leave the country to get out of there safely. So we're working hard to legislate this and to make sure there's still a pathway.

Warner: So that's the process. What's been the result? I mean, how many Afghans are there that you'd like to get out, and what could the US reasonably do on the visas?

Crow: Right now there are about 150,000 applicants in Afghanistan. Those are principal applicants. Those are just the people who said they've worked for the U.S. government during the 20-year war. Usually, 60 to 70 percent fall off. So we think that there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 70,000 Afghans who did legitimately work for the United States government or allies who are there. And not all of those folks will complete the application process. So we think there's a lot who have been left behind, who are still there, who we could pull to safety, but the pipeline is obviously very small. So figuring out how we get them out of the country, how we process them, and how we vet them effectively is a real challenge.

We are working with some of our other partners. The Qataris have a presence there, and they're a close partner of the United States, and they have an embassy in Kabul, and they've been working with us to facilitate some of those interviews and some of the exit procedures. But it is very, very challenging. There's no doubt about that.

Warner: You helped establish the bipartisan Afghan War Commission, and I'll note that you said after the NFC's report, that you will work to provide a full facts-based accounting of our nation's longest war. You seemed to indicate earlier that we ought to take some lessons away from Afghanistan, perhaps so that we don't repeat the history. What is one question, before we go, that you're still asking in regards to the war?

Crow: I think the ultimate question here is, as the nation, why did we allow a war to go on for 20 years when there were more than enough signs that this war was unwinnable and we weren't going to achieve our goals years ago? Why did we stop having a conversation about this?

Warner: But Congressman, it sounds almost like you're talking about Vietnam. That was invoked a lot in relation to Afghanistan.

Crow: There are a lot of parallels. And frankly, I think the responsibility lies with Congress ultimately. And here's why: our constitution gives Congress the authority to decide matters of war and peace. It's only Congress that can authorize the use of force. Congress decides military policy. We set the military budget. And what happened was after 9/11, we provided these authorizations for use of military force, these AUMFs, which is how Congress carries that out. And they were essentially blank checks, and we gave it to administration after administration. We didn't rein it in, they didn't sunset. And then we stopped having a national conversation about it, and we stopped holding people accountable.

And then the generals come out and the generals say, "Well, we can win this. We just need more troops. We just need more tanks. We just need more time." And of course, the generals are going to say that. That's what generals always say, right? You'll never find a general that says, "We can't win this. We have to end it." That's just not military culture. But that's also why we have civilian control of the military, because it's our elected officials that should be held accountable that should make those tough calls and say, "No, we're not going to win this and we're going to end it."

So what happened and why did we stop having that national conversation? And frankly, that's why one of my priorities in Congress has been ending these AUMFs. We actually have a bill right now to end one, one that's still being used, and replace it with one that sunsets that has very, very defined guardrails and puts that responsibility down to Congress to continue to have that conversation and to be accountable to the American people. And that's ultimately how our system is structured. But it hasn't worked that way, and we have to get it back to working the right way.

Warner: I just have to follow up on the notion that you are hard-pressed to find a general who would tell you, we can't win this war. Should we be training generals differently?

Crow: Well, I mean, military culture is mission-first, right? No, I don't think that this is a general issue. This is a checks and balances between what we ask our military to do versus civilian control of the military. I used to be a military officer and you put a mission first. It's no fail. You get it done at all costs. And of course, that's what we want our military to be thinking and doing. That's also why generals in the military don't make those decisions about how we're going to commit our military and when we're going to stop. That's on our civilian elected leadership. We have civilian control of the military in the United States of America, which actually is unique. A lot of countries don't have that.

Warner: Thank you so much for your time.

Crow: Thank you, Ryan. Appreciate it.

Read more here:
Interview: Rep. Jason Crow on the Afghanistan withdrawal and the ... - Colorado Public Radio

Khawaja Asif warns of striking terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan – DAWN.com

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has warned Afghanistans Taliban rulers that Islamabad will strike terrorist hideouts inside the neighbouring country if the latter were unable to rein in anti-Pakistan militants.

The minister made the remarks in an inclusive interview with Voice of America published on Wednesday. Asifs comments come on the back of his earlier statement that the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) were using Afghan soil for carrying out attacks in Pakistan.

The defence minister said that in his visit to Afghanistan in late-February, he reminded the Taliban administration to live up to their cross-border security commitments forbidding terrorists from using Afghan soil to plan and conduct attacks on Pakistan or Islamabad will take action.

We have communicated to Kabul during our last visit that please, as our neighbours and brothers, whatever is emanating from Afghan soil is your responsibility, he said.

If that is not done, at some point well have to [] resort to some measures, which will definitely wherever [terrorists] are, their sanctuaries on Afghan soil well have to hit them, he said. Well have to hit them because we cannot tolerate this situation for long.

Asif went on to say that the Afghans responded to this really well.

They responded well, really well. Perhaps for them to disentangle the TTP from this stage of course they want to disentangle, this is my impression [that] they want to disentangle but this disentanglement, perhaps, will take time.

But they are doing well and we wish them well and we dont want to get into a situation where this situation with the [TTP] escalates and we do something that is not to the liking of our neighbours and brothers in Kabul.

During the interview, Asif was asked whether he believed the Talibans claim that the TTP were not using Afghan soil to carry out attacks in Pakistan.

He responded by saying, They still operate from their soil.

Asif was also asked about his assertion that the TTP were using weapons left behind by the US forces in Afghanistan. Have you provided any evidence of that to the Americans? the interviewer asked.

It can be seen all over the place. On the streets of Kabul, I saw it myself, the minister responded. He said that the TTP were using light weapons, assault rifles, ammunition, night vision goggles and sniper rifles which were left behind by US troops.

When asked whether this point had been raised with the Americans, Asif said: What is the use of talking to Washington? They left that sort of hardware on foreign soil because they couldnt carry it.

The interviewer pointed out that the US State Departments response to Pakistans assertion was that they did not have an independent assessment. She also asked whether Islamabad needed the help of the US in fighting terrorism in Pakistan.

I do not see any logic in that, the minister said. My personal view is that we can take care of this [] menace ourselves, Asif said, giving the examples of Zarb-i-Azb and Raddul Fassad.

He also termed the resurgence in terrorism in the country to be a grave mistake by the previous PTI government.

Separately, while speaking on the floor of the National Assembly on Thursday, Asif said that the House would be given an in-camera briefing tomorrow (Friday) on the countrys security situation.

He said that the military leadership would brief parliament regarding the states policy on countering militancy, stating that the security establishment was cognisant of the prevailing situation.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the same and assured that a healthy interaction would take place tomorrow in which legitimate concerns raised during the session would be answered.

Last week, the top civil and military leadership reaffirmed their commitment to thwart terrorism threats and vowed to relaunch the National Action Plan (NAP) within 15 days to crush militants reportedly coming in from Afghanistan.

The decisions were made at the National Security Committee (NSC) meeting, which the government said was in continuation of a previous meeting convened after a militant attack inside Peshawars police headquarters in January, in which 86 people, mostly police officials, were martyred.

Political parties, including allies of the federal government, however, have expressed their concerns over the possible military offensive against militants, with most saying that those who brought back the militants should be brought to justice before launching an offensive against militants.

Addressing the NA session today, MNA Ali Wazir said that the countrys current policy regarding militancy needed to be reviewed.

I appeal to the incumbent government that those responsible for the rise in terrorism [] those who brought these militants into Pakistan should be punished, he said.

Until and unless these people are punished, we wont allow the new operation to commence, he added.

Agreeing with Wazir, MNA Mohsin Dawar said that operations were cinducted in the past but none of them were successful in eliminating terrorism.

This is because you are confused. There is no clarity in your policy. You send mixed signals, he asserted.

Read the rest here:
Khawaja Asif warns of striking terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan - DAWN.com

‘We need to act fast’: experts race to preserve Afghanistan’s ancient … – Art Newspaper

The Taliban have backed an 18-month-long conservation project to safeguard the Afghan heritage site of Mes Aynak, a 2,000-year-old Buddhist city that is at risk of destruction from a long-delayed mining project.

Located around 40km southeast of Kabul in the province of Logar, Mes Aynak is thought to be home to the second largest untapped copper mine in the world, with deposits worth an estimated $100bn. In 2008, Afghanistans government under then-president Hamid Karzai signed a lucrative contract with a Chinese company to extract its riches through an open-pit copper mine.

The development, which will destroy the ancient city and all its buried secrets, was delayed to allow for further archaeological studies and the relocation of the site's valuable artefacts. With the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, fears grew that the new administration could prevent rescue efforts and press ahead with the mining operations. However, the new government has stressed its intention to preserve the sites archaeological remains.

Now, as part of a $1m project funded by the Swiss foundation Aliph, the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) has begun works to restore and repair temporary structures that protect more than 50 sites containing archaeological remains at Mes Aynak, including stupas, statues, wall and floor paintings.

These structures were erected as far back as 2010 and many have been deformed under the weight of snow and other environmental factors, Ajmal Maiwandi, the chief executive of AKTC Afghanistan, tells The Art Newspaper. The project is intended to consolidate and replace them with stable protective structures.

The project will also include developing and executing a conservation plan for the ancient remains and a trial run to relocate several artefacts to a nearby site.

A panel of international specialists will soon be deployed to Mes Aynak, Maiwandi says. When the conservation plan is in place we are going to consolidate as many of the artefacts as possible in the year that we have left. A cataloguing process will identify and prioritise the most critical items.

The Aga Khan Trust for Culture has started working on theprojects first phase to stabilise and expand protective shelters above archaeological remains and artefacts at Mes Aynak Photo: courtesy of AKTC

Afghanistan's ministry of information and culture confirmed that works to safeguard the site's cultural heritage have commenced and that the Taliban government is committed to preserving its artefacts.

The Mes Aynak mine is of economic and cultural value to Afghans. The ministry of information and culture is seeking to ensure that its economic benefits reach Afghans and its cultural and historical treasures remain safe, says Atiqullah Azizi, Afghanistans deputy minister of culture and arts in a video recording provided to The Art Newspaper. He also called for cooperation with the international community in protecting the countrys historic monuments.

Maiwandi says the new conservation project at Mes Aynak is urgent because without knowing exactly when mining operations could begin, we need to act fast.

Excavations during the 15-year hiatus in development have also exposed many artefacts that were previously protected by the earth. The other urgency is to stop the decay and by extension the further destruction of the artefacts through nature and progression of time, Maiwandi adds.

Aliph,a global fund dedicated to the protection and rehabilitation of cultural heritage in conflict and post-conflict areas andcurrently one of only a handful of funders supporting cultural heritage projects in Afghanistan, says it remains committed to saving Afghanistans cultural heritage and to finding the best possible solution to preserve Mes Aynak.

Mes Aynak has been described as one of the most important archaeological finds of the last four decades in the region.The archaeological site includes numerous Buddhist monasteries with stupas, sculptures, wall paintings, Zoroastrian temples, and traces of industrial activity dating to Late Antiquity, says Sandra Bialystok, Aliph's director of communications and partnerships.

The Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in 2001 was one of the driving reasons that Aliph was founded in the first place, Bialystok adds. The diverse cultural heritage of Afghanistan is a treasure of Afghan people and also part of the common heritage of humanity, so its protection is essential.

The conservation project is expected to provide much-needed employment for 350 people in Afghanistan including labourers, architects, engineers, archaeologists and technical staff at a time when the country is experiencing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world.

Maiwandi hints that in time the project could be extended to rescue more artefacts. There are other sites that have to be excavated and more archaeology that needs to happen, he says. That is perhaps a phase two and even a phase three of this project. For us preserving heritage at this site is an important aspect of preserving Afghan cultural patrimony, the main reason that we are involved in the project.

See the rest here:
'We need to act fast': experts race to preserve Afghanistan's ancient ... - Art Newspaper